The use of CKM
thomas.beale at openehr.org
Sat Jan 28 03:47:47 EST 2017
there is no text book for that yet, although programming principles are
generally applied these days. But just as in programming, one can build
a class that doesn't use a separate class for its inner structure, if
that structure is not re-usable. There is undoubtedly some sub-optimal
modelling in the CKM archetypes, but I suspect what you are looking for
is some machine-processable general rule that you can use in software to
e.g. always know that when you hit a CLUSTER, it will be a new
archetype? I don't think this kind of thing can ever be guaranteed.
What I foresee creating is a handbook of 'patterns' in the same sense as
the Gang-of-for software patterns. It might be possible one day to
machine discover which pattern a given archetype conforms to and to do
something with that knowledge at runtime, but we are not there yet.
On 27/01/2017 23:51, Bert Verhees wrote:
> Hi Thomas, Now I read it back I see that my previous reply was not
> my.most understandable English.
> I try again. Is there somewhere described that archetypes should be
> structured in cluster archetypes which fill slots in container entry
> I see that it is done a lot in CKM, but I also see (must be) leftovers
> in which the entry - archetypes contain the structures itself, and in
> this way disturb the building block idea.
> Like in programming languages are described paradigms, it would be
> good to have that for archetypes. An advantage of formal structure
> descriptions would be that discussion would become possible. Another
> advantage would be that newcomers would have some directions.
> So, that is why i hsve this question: are there some paradigms
> described which shape new archetypes for CKM?
> Op vr 27 jan. 2017 17:03 schreef Bert Verhees <bert.verhees at rosa.nl
> <mailto:bert.verhees at rosa.nl>>:
> Op 27-1-2017 om 16:26 schreef Thomas Beale:
> > Hi Bert,
> > I think your statements describe things as they are today - or maybe
> > you meant something different?
> Thanks for replying
> That is nice, I must have found a leftover from the past and I did not
> find this strategy somewhere formalized.
> Is there description a formal strategy of desirable structures?
> Best regards,
> > - thomas
> > On 24/01/2017 11:33, Bert Verhees wrote:
> >> Hi
> >> I have a remark about the use of some archetypes in CKM.
> >> I think that it would be nice to have archetypes of some specific
> >> content, for example, medication, always of type cluster, and have
> >> container archetypes, for example in this case, of type action to
> >> hang them in a composition.
> >> If this was a policy, then the idea of building blocks would be
> >> more usable.
> > _______________________________________________
> > openEHR-clinical mailing list
> > openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org
> <mailto:openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org>
> openEHR-clinical mailing list
> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org
Management Board, Specifications Program Lead, openEHR Foundation
Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS, British Computer Society
Health IT blog <http://wolandscat.net/> | Culture blog
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the openEHR-clinical